Thursday, November 14, 2013

Big ramble of the day... because I felt like processing some thoughts.

 It must be odd... the level of cognitive dissonance it takes for a Christian to support Jewish tribalists (intermarriage is illegal*, etc.) raining down white phosphorous on Palestinian Christians or bombing, undermining and destroying Persian/Syrian civilizations to the detriment of Syrian Christians too.    

In 1947 David Ben-Gurion and the religious parties reached an agreement that included an understanding that matters of personal status in Israel, which included marriage, would continue to be determined by religious authorities. This arrangement has been termed the status quo agreement and has been maintained despite numerous changes of government since.
   ....  in 1953 rabbinical courts were established with jurisdiction over matters of marriage and divorces of all Jews in Israel, nationals and residents. (section 1) It was also provided that marriages and divorces of Jews in Israel would be conducted according to the law of the Torah. (section 2)
   Since 1953 the rabbinate has only approved marriages between Jews in Israel conducted in accordance with the Orthodox interpretation of halakha... 
  Jewish marriage and divorce in Israel is under the jurisdiction of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, which defines a person's Jewish status strictly according to halakha. The rabbinate's standards and interpretations in these matters are generally used by the Israeli Interior Ministry in registering marriages and divorces.
  Halakhic and biblical restrictions on marriage are applied in Israel. So, for example, a kohen may not marry a convert to Judaism.  --Wikipedia

It must be odd for Christian Zionists to support anti-miscegenation laws, racism and ideologies of racial/tribal supremacy on that level when they're simultaneously being told by the Zionist/mainstream media that they shouldn't do that.

Not to mention the issue of "separation of religion and state" by which some Jewish tribalists and racists attack American Christians so that they can't have so much as a nativity scene based on any form of local community, on local public property and what not.  But if Christians were involved in supporting and establishing an entire "Christian state" just like they are supporting a "Jewish state" with foreign aide and support, then apparently they could have their nativity scenes?   

Apparently if anyone wants to "establish" their religion (including marriage laws) and impose it on others then they should convert to the political cult of Zionism.  Then you don't have to worry about hurting someone's feelings with a nativity scene.  In fact, then you can get out a bulldozer and level their house without being concerned that they'll be crying themselves to sleep over an imposition of religion.
Although... one would think that an "imposition" of Talmudic forms of religion might hurt someone's feelings, given that their house just got bulldozed.  So where are the "see you in court" lawsuits of Talmudists over that imposition or "establishment" of religious beliefs? 

It's interesting that Richard Cohen* probably just made the mistake of thinking that everyone else had a "conventionally" Jewish mentality with respect to interracial marriage too.  Oops.  Now he's in trouble.  Because ironically, the dumb "goyim" don't necessarily have the "It makes me want to gag." reflex that he projected onto them... but he still has that reflex.

All you have to do is look at the establishment of that tribal mentality in Israel, where they're still trying to police marriages.  Duh.  Or listen when a tribalist/Talmudist says to Anthony Weiner, "You married an Arab." As if marrying a beautiful Arab woman is some sort of a great insult, etc. 

Duh.  You're often not going to understand what's going on around you in the news without understanding Talmudic ideologies or their secular versions based on a mentality of racial superiority.

*Here’s more evidence of the trend: Richard Cohen of the Washington Post standing up for Romney’s superior Jewish culture argument in a column called “For Israelis and Palestinians, a difference beyond question.” Cohen is a liberal Democrat, but his column exposes the chauvinistic thinking about Jews and Israel that underlies even “liberal” considerations of the issue. Again, the guy might as well be a neocon. The neocons were all Democrats a while back.
Cohen’s putdown of Palestinians scarcely acknowledges the occupation and says nothing about the destruction of the educated elites that Israel achieved with the Nakba. I simply don’t understand how American liberals can get away with this sort of racial contempt about countries half the world away. Oh and what about all the Palestinian businesses destroyed? What about brilliant young men like the late Ibrahim Abu-Lughod, forced to follow through on their studies in foreign countries?  Link

Note that if Palestinians were able to incorporate themselves in elite networks in America based on tribalism then they'd own a lot of patents and probably begin to think of themselves as racially superior in some way too.  Just think if they began to be put in charge of creating money out of nothing by the goyim or began being able to lend tribe members money at zero percent interest, etc.

Apparently people think that there's actually some biological cause for what is happening other than perceptions and perhaps dispositions.  Meanwhile, back in reality...  the main reason that there is disparity is the ideology of Talmudism/tribalism and ethnic/racial supremacy vs. some deep problems with Islamic ideologies and modern Islamic cultures too.  And that's generally all it amounts to.  There's no real difference in the physical structure of brains or some sort of "This little bit of DNA did it." that's the explanation for all of this.

Not to mention that those supposed racial structures of the brain or that supposed "This little DNA string is real important or somethin'." are always one romantic relationship away from being shredded when people of different "races" have sex with each other.  Duh.

Yet another ramble though... one thing that does tend to be important is skin color, due to the psychological effects of perceptions about being "dark"/evil or "fair"/just.  Which ironically, is really quite unfair to darker skinned people... and pretty dumb.  But even if it's stupid and there's no justification for it, it leads to huge results anyway and mass "perceptions are reality" for most people.  But even there, the answer is sex and romance.  (Although people can have a child with black skin within one generation, or even twins... one with black/evil skin from the "dark ages" and one with "enlightened" fair/just/good skin.  It's pretty silly.  I guess the fair twin would be superior to the dark twin, huh?  Silly. But that's the way people tend to be with respect to their perceptions, as light combined with fine or more symmetrical features tends to = good for them.  Enlightening, huh?)  

No comments: